 |
| Alhamdulillah. |
Ahad, Februari 19, 2012
Alhamdulillah.
Isnin, Januari 16, 2012
Bersatulah Melayu
Kalau nampak ada retak
Kerana retak hujungnya belah
Bimbang belah membawa pecah
Melayu itu tak mampu berpecah
Bersatulah Melayu
Melayu itu cermin
Dalam jernihnya kita menilik
Kita menilik mencari wajah
Wajah Melayu wajah kita
Bersatulah Melayu
Melayu itu lampu
Terangi jalan luas terbentang
Siapa cuba kaburkan suluh
Kelak hilang arah dan tuju
Bersatulah Melayu
Melayu itu payung
Payung jangan carik
Carik payung
Manakan lagi tempat berlindung
Bersatulah Melayu
Melayu itu pohon
Akarnya mencengkam bumi
Bumi ini pautan kasih
Kasih Melayu segala kasih
Bersatulah Melayu
Cari dan rangkalah jalan damai
Damai membuka pintu pertemuan
Pertemuan kelak merintis padu
Berpadulah Melayu, berpadu semua.
Kerana retak hujungnya belah
Bimbang belah membawa pecah
Melayu itu tak mampu berpecah
Bersatulah Melayu
Melayu itu cermin
Dalam jernihnya kita menilik
Kita menilik mencari wajah
Wajah Melayu wajah kita
Bersatulah Melayu
Melayu itu lampu
Terangi jalan luas terbentang
Siapa cuba kaburkan suluh
Kelak hilang arah dan tuju
Bersatulah Melayu
Melayu itu payung
Payung jangan carik
Carik payung
Manakan lagi tempat berlindung
Bersatulah Melayu
Melayu itu pohon
Akarnya mencengkam bumi
Bumi ini pautan kasih
Kasih Melayu segala kasih
Bersatulah Melayu
Cari dan rangkalah jalan damai
Damai membuka pintu pertemuan
Pertemuan kelak merintis padu
Berpadulah Melayu, berpadu semua.
Karya: Lim Swee Tin.
 |
| Malu Woi! |
Ahad, Januari 08, 2012
@goal_intl
 |
| Di celah2 berita AC Milan ada twitter pasal Negeri Sembilan. |
Ini perkembangan baik, tanda liga kita diperhati, Singapura pun angkat siaran live liga kita untuk dinikmati. Tahniah Negeri, kau tetap di hati. Liga Malaysia sudah mula dicemburui.
Demonstration and Democracy
Ah, 901 Free Anwar is just around the corner. some people said, demonstration is part of democracy, we've done it over and over again in times. Do I have to agree on that? Sure, the practice of political demonstration as the means of political expression has existed in Malaysia since post-World War 2 or even prior to that era. However, as a political culture it is still relatively new. Historically speaking, the most cited example of public protest was the Natrah’s case in 1940s. When the High Court announced that Natrah should be returned to her Dutch biological parents and that her marriage to her Malay husband was annulled because of her young age, it had outraged the Malays in Malaya and also Singapore. This demonstration had caused many innocent deaths (See Fatini Yaacob, Natrah (1937-2009).
Then there was the 13th May 1969 riot in Kuala Lumpur which had also ended with over a hundred of casualties (See Kia Soong, May 13: Declassified documents on the Malaysian riots of 1969). The most recent demonstration in our political history was during Anwar’s case in 1998. The event was dubbed as the biggest demonstration ever staged in Malaysia. The great support by the public was partially due to his “magnetic charisma” and “leadership appeal”. Since then, Anwar’s case in 1998 – public demonstration has entered into the Malaysian political psyche and inadvertently became part of Malaysia’s political culture. The rise of this culture, statistically speaking is attributable to Anwar, who has managed to convince his countrymen of the efficacy of demonstration in facing the powers-that-be. It is not surprising that in the post-Anwar era, demonstration has increased significantly, it grew bolder and has become popular political expression in the modern Malaysia.
My question here is simple: if we view this issue from the perspective of political theory: is demonstration symbolise country’s vibrant democracy? Or to put in more simple term, is demonstration democratic? To its advocates in Malaysia, demonstration is an expression of “suara rakyat” or “people’s voice”, therefore logically it represents democratic practices. According to Lincolnian’s definition and advocate of democracy, it is “of the people, by the people and for the people.” Thus, since “suara rakrat” is truly coming from Rakyat, then it must be democratic.
How true is this hypothesis? Firstly, let’s talk about numbers. When a demonstration is organised, how many people would turn up? Is it 1000 people? 10,000 people, 100,000 people? Or maybe 200,000 people. They came to one designated area with banners and flags, gathered and chanting the slogans. After few hours, they went home, satisfied for so called expressing people’s wish for a change. Now, let’s put this figure into wider perspective. Malaysia’s total population is 26 million. The figure we have just now was, says 100,000. So, what happened to another 25 million and 900,000 people who did not express their opinion in that manner? Can we call this democracy? However, democracy is “one man, one vote.” The 25.9 million is not equivalent to 100,000 people. This is a simple fact that many were ready not to heed. But, it lies at the core question about democracy. How come our people who claim wanting of democracy but ended up become undemocratic?
This phenomenon reminds me of al-Ghazali’s metaphor of a thief. He says, sometimes “victim become more ferocious than the thief.” When someone becomes a victim of theft, he would cry at the top of his lung calling for help. People would come and beat the thief to death. Now, who is more ferocious here? The thief who just stole a few ringgit and beaten to death or someone who calls for people to beat the person to his death? In fact, the oppressed could be crueller than the oppressor, especially when he used “undemocratic means” in the name of democracy to express injustices the oppressor has committed.
Similarly in the case of demonstration, it was used to express dissatisfaction and injustices the so called “oppressor” has committed. But, they have caused tremendous problems to others, to economy, small traders, people going to workplace and road users. The only few trouble the many. So, what’s so democratic about demonstration? To Bentham and Rawl, that’s simply unacceptable.
Secondly, was demonstration effective in attaining its objectives, whatever that is? Effective here means to “achieve their targeted objectives” such as unseating the government, forcing the powers-that-be to change their policy/ course of action and etc.
The advocates of demonstration might think so. But, if we read the history of demonstration, we can observe that the end result of demonstration is casualties. Let me present some examples. Since I am an 80s-generation, I’m just familiar with events occurred during my era. Let’s go to Europe. How demonstration ended in Revolution Square, Bucharest during Nicolae Ceauşescu in 1989? Western press reported that there were about 26,000 deaths before Ceauşescu and his wife Elena were prosecuted? The August Coup in Soviet Union during the last period of Gorbachev era in 1991 also ended with death. Same case in the Tiananmen Square China in 1989. Red Cross reported that, the 1989 Protest ended with 3,000 deaths.
So, are we going to that direction and extent, by trading human life with our political objectives? Is that democracy is all about? Show me statistics that democracy can bring about positive changes to both sides. Even in the most flourished democracy in the world, i.e. United States of America, demonstrators were not entertained, partially due to the US’s hypocrisy. What’s so hypocritical about the US was that, they criticise other governments that trying to stop demonstration. But, when it happens in the US itself, they have no reservation whatever to detain and charge the person with “disturbing public order.” Because they knew demonstration is bad for the US. But, unfortunately to some unenlightened Malaysian, they still believe in this combustible instrument of change, so to speak!
In sum, public demonstration is not a “civilised way” of political expression, but it is a scare tactic and cheap way used by a desperate to call for a change. Change for what, we are not sure!
* This post is contributed by a guest author known as Mr EJ Stone for drnellwordpress.com. Whatever written here are views of his own
Then there was the 13th May 1969 riot in Kuala Lumpur which had also ended with over a hundred of casualties (See Kia Soong, May 13: Declassified documents on the Malaysian riots of 1969). The most recent demonstration in our political history was during Anwar’s case in 1998. The event was dubbed as the biggest demonstration ever staged in Malaysia. The great support by the public was partially due to his “magnetic charisma” and “leadership appeal”. Since then, Anwar’s case in 1998 – public demonstration has entered into the Malaysian political psyche and inadvertently became part of Malaysia’s political culture. The rise of this culture, statistically speaking is attributable to Anwar, who has managed to convince his countrymen of the efficacy of demonstration in facing the powers-that-be. It is not surprising that in the post-Anwar era, demonstration has increased significantly, it grew bolder and has become popular political expression in the modern Malaysia.
My question here is simple: if we view this issue from the perspective of political theory: is demonstration symbolise country’s vibrant democracy? Or to put in more simple term, is demonstration democratic? To its advocates in Malaysia, demonstration is an expression of “suara rakyat” or “people’s voice”, therefore logically it represents democratic practices. According to Lincolnian’s definition and advocate of democracy, it is “of the people, by the people and for the people.” Thus, since “suara rakrat” is truly coming from Rakyat, then it must be democratic.
How true is this hypothesis? Firstly, let’s talk about numbers. When a demonstration is organised, how many people would turn up? Is it 1000 people? 10,000 people, 100,000 people? Or maybe 200,000 people. They came to one designated area with banners and flags, gathered and chanting the slogans. After few hours, they went home, satisfied for so called expressing people’s wish for a change. Now, let’s put this figure into wider perspective. Malaysia’s total population is 26 million. The figure we have just now was, says 100,000. So, what happened to another 25 million and 900,000 people who did not express their opinion in that manner? Can we call this democracy? However, democracy is “one man, one vote.” The 25.9 million is not equivalent to 100,000 people. This is a simple fact that many were ready not to heed. But, it lies at the core question about democracy. How come our people who claim wanting of democracy but ended up become undemocratic?
This phenomenon reminds me of al-Ghazali’s metaphor of a thief. He says, sometimes “victim become more ferocious than the thief.” When someone becomes a victim of theft, he would cry at the top of his lung calling for help. People would come and beat the thief to death. Now, who is more ferocious here? The thief who just stole a few ringgit and beaten to death or someone who calls for people to beat the person to his death? In fact, the oppressed could be crueller than the oppressor, especially when he used “undemocratic means” in the name of democracy to express injustices the oppressor has committed.
Similarly in the case of demonstration, it was used to express dissatisfaction and injustices the so called “oppressor” has committed. But, they have caused tremendous problems to others, to economy, small traders, people going to workplace and road users. The only few trouble the many. So, what’s so democratic about demonstration? To Bentham and Rawl, that’s simply unacceptable.
Secondly, was demonstration effective in attaining its objectives, whatever that is? Effective here means to “achieve their targeted objectives” such as unseating the government, forcing the powers-that-be to change their policy/ course of action and etc.
The advocates of demonstration might think so. But, if we read the history of demonstration, we can observe that the end result of demonstration is casualties. Let me present some examples. Since I am an 80s-generation, I’m just familiar with events occurred during my era. Let’s go to Europe. How demonstration ended in Revolution Square, Bucharest during Nicolae Ceauşescu in 1989? Western press reported that there were about 26,000 deaths before Ceauşescu and his wife Elena were prosecuted? The August Coup in Soviet Union during the last period of Gorbachev era in 1991 also ended with death. Same case in the Tiananmen Square China in 1989. Red Cross reported that, the 1989 Protest ended with 3,000 deaths.
So, are we going to that direction and extent, by trading human life with our political objectives? Is that democracy is all about? Show me statistics that democracy can bring about positive changes to both sides. Even in the most flourished democracy in the world, i.e. United States of America, demonstrators were not entertained, partially due to the US’s hypocrisy. What’s so hypocritical about the US was that, they criticise other governments that trying to stop demonstration. But, when it happens in the US itself, they have no reservation whatever to detain and charge the person with “disturbing public order.” Because they knew demonstration is bad for the US. But, unfortunately to some unenlightened Malaysian, they still believe in this combustible instrument of change, so to speak!
In sum, public demonstration is not a “civilised way” of political expression, but it is a scare tactic and cheap way used by a desperate to call for a change. Change for what, we are not sure!
* This post is contributed by a guest author known as Mr EJ Stone for drnellwordpress.com. Whatever written here are views of his own
 |
| Gandhi says. |
Isnin, Disember 12, 2011
Pecat Je Kakitangan Awam?
Aku terpanggil untuk manulis komen tentang artikel oleh seorang blogger ni.
Ini Bukan Stail Kita
Kemudian, Di post pulak pada FB KJPSH aku, dan aku komen seperti di bawah;
hehe..mohon izin bos, aku nk kupas pjg ni!
polisi amerika sentiasa sama tak kira demokrat atau republikan yg ambik alih. so xde masalah kalau nk buang anarchy minded officer. anarchy adalah golongan yg memperjuangkan hak individu dan kebebasan mutlak setiap org, hence tak menyokong apa2 dasar politik sekalipun. cth, polisi pd israel dan polisi antarabangsa. di amerika ia adalah kerajaan yg boleh terima pandangan pembangkang, vice versa. barack obama pun lantik hillary clinton jd sec of state dia yg jugak rival dia masa running utk US president
di Malaysia, ia berbeza. yg memerintah adlh satu party, bila re-elected, party ada pakej dia sendiri, dan takkan include opp dlm kabinet.kalau ruling party ada dasar sendiri, ia adalah 1000000 kali opposite dgn pembangkang, vice versa. maknanya, kalau opp memerintah, perubahan 360 darjah utk segala dasar dan polisi yg telah wujud, menjadikan kita akan lama dan costly utk mula balik stabil dan get rid of ppl yg x comply dgn diorg. turutan ini akan berterusan sampai bila2, hatred and vengence berterusan sehingga kita betul2 matang dlm berpolitik.
jd, di amerika, kalau govt servant dibuang bwh exec order tu, mereka bukanlah seorang demokrat atau republikan. mereka adalah yg seorg nonconformist dan tak setuju dgn polisi negara, pasal di amerika hanya ada 2 parti sj sampai bila2 selagi perlembagaan diorg tak berubah. jd, sgt wajarlah mereka dibuang pasal merosakkan polisi dan delivery pd rakyat spt dlm polisi, walaupun parti mana yg memerintah.
kt Malaysia ia sgt berbeza. selain sistem kita demokrasi raja berpelembagaan, demokrasi kita bukan mutlak, dan kita tak boleh ikut dasar negara lain, apatah lg stail amerika. ikut stail amerika, lg melingkup negara. aku rasa takde pun org anarchy yg true kt Malaysia ni. kalau ada pn poser je, selain anarchy tu maksudnya budak2 tepi jln yg baru nak naik dan perangai mcm sampah. di Malaysia, kalau kau tak sokong BN, kau boleh sokong pas, sokong dap, sokong pkr, (PR tak wujud, pasal PR tu diadakan atas dasar mutual understanding je, bukan parti berdaftar) so, ada byk dasar, byk polisi dan kepentingan masing2 yg berbeza, sgt berbeza mcm minyak dan api. bukan mcm demokrat dan republikan di US
so, aku tak sokong blogger utk part ni, selain ruang lingkup exec order tu kump sasar dia tak sama dgn kump sasar penjawat awam Malaysia, aku rasa bukan masalah sokong atau tak sokong kerajaan yg jd punca kerajaan maju atau x maju. selain masalah kematangan berpolitik, ini masalah sikap dan tak tau malu.
di Malaysia, pembangkang tak terima dasar kerajaan sbg satu yg baik, dah la lansung tak sokong dasar kerajaan, diorg jugak lansung tak bagi idea bernas, mcmana nk run sesebuah polisi tu dgn lebih efisien supaya dpt deliver pd rakyat spt yg diharapkan oleh semua. vice versa! kita belum matang sematang amerika dlm berpolitik.
masalah sikap pulak ialah ialah dari segi moral dan integriti. rasuah, makap dan lain2 insentif bwh meja jdkan institusi kerajaan ada reputasi buruk.
tak tau malu pulak bila kita tak deliver job, kita selamba buat bodo dan nk stay makan gaji dgn jayanya. tgk kt jepun, tak payah akta pun, kalau tak boleh deliver, diorg terus berhenti dgn announcement dibuat kt national tv. maju jugak kerajaan diorg.
menjawab soalan, aku on je kalau nk buat mcm ni, tp pastikan adakah kita buang seseorg penjawat awam tu dek tak menyokong kerajaan, atau dek tak menyokong parti memerintah. kerajaan adalah institusi yg berkhidmat utk rakyat, jd kalau tak sokong kerajaan, patut sgt kena buang. tp tak menyokong parti memerintah ialah maksudnya dia bukan ahli, tak pergi perhimpunan agung atau muktamar, tak jugak ahli cabang, bukan ahli pemuda apatah lagi ahli dewan muslimah. parti memerintah adalah utk kepentingan ahli, dan bukan kerana rakyat.
mmg betul parti memerintah adalah parti yg membentuk kerajaan, tp dlm kerajaan kita, perlu ada yg memiliki pandangan berbeza, yg paling penting mesti sama2 semua tak kira penyokong parti mana deliver sebaik mungkin utk rakyat selagi terdaya dan mampu. tp yg tak boleh deliver, elok sgt dibuang. so kalau btul nk implement, kita mesti ada gaya kerajaan campuran, dan mengenepikan golongan sampah yg noncomformist dan tak nak deliver pd rakyat pun.
Saidina Ali pernah menyampaikan;
malah Allah pun berfirman;
Ini Bukan Stail Kita
Kemudian, Di post pulak pada FB KJPSH aku, dan aku komen seperti di bawah;
hehe..mohon izin bos, aku nk kupas pjg ni!
polisi amerika sentiasa sama tak kira demokrat atau republikan yg ambik alih. so xde masalah kalau nk buang anarchy minded officer. anarchy adalah golongan yg memperjuangkan hak individu dan kebebasan mutlak setiap org, hence tak menyokong apa2 dasar politik sekalipun. cth, polisi pd israel dan polisi antarabangsa. di amerika ia adalah kerajaan yg boleh terima pandangan pembangkang, vice versa. barack obama pun lantik hillary clinton jd sec of state dia yg jugak rival dia masa running utk US president
di Malaysia, ia berbeza. yg memerintah adlh satu party, bila re-elected, party ada pakej dia sendiri, dan takkan include opp dlm kabinet.kalau ruling party ada dasar sendiri, ia adalah 1000000 kali opposite dgn pembangkang, vice versa. maknanya, kalau opp memerintah, perubahan 360 darjah utk segala dasar dan polisi yg telah wujud, menjadikan kita akan lama dan costly utk mula balik stabil dan get rid of ppl yg x comply dgn diorg. turutan ini akan berterusan sampai bila2, hatred and vengence berterusan sehingga kita betul2 matang dlm berpolitik.
jd, di amerika, kalau govt servant dibuang bwh exec order tu, mereka bukanlah seorang demokrat atau republikan. mereka adalah yg seorg nonconformist dan tak setuju dgn polisi negara, pasal di amerika hanya ada 2 parti sj sampai bila2 selagi perlembagaan diorg tak berubah. jd, sgt wajarlah mereka dibuang pasal merosakkan polisi dan delivery pd rakyat spt dlm polisi, walaupun parti mana yg memerintah.
kt Malaysia ia sgt berbeza. selain sistem kita demokrasi raja berpelembagaan, demokrasi kita bukan mutlak, dan kita tak boleh ikut dasar negara lain, apatah lg stail amerika. ikut stail amerika, lg melingkup negara. aku rasa takde pun org anarchy yg true kt Malaysia ni. kalau ada pn poser je, selain anarchy tu maksudnya budak2 tepi jln yg baru nak naik dan perangai mcm sampah. di Malaysia, kalau kau tak sokong BN, kau boleh sokong pas, sokong dap, sokong pkr, (PR tak wujud, pasal PR tu diadakan atas dasar mutual understanding je, bukan parti berdaftar) so, ada byk dasar, byk polisi dan kepentingan masing2 yg berbeza, sgt berbeza mcm minyak dan api. bukan mcm demokrat dan republikan di US
so, aku tak sokong blogger utk part ni, selain ruang lingkup exec order tu kump sasar dia tak sama dgn kump sasar penjawat awam Malaysia, aku rasa bukan masalah sokong atau tak sokong kerajaan yg jd punca kerajaan maju atau x maju. selain masalah kematangan berpolitik, ini masalah sikap dan tak tau malu.
di Malaysia, pembangkang tak terima dasar kerajaan sbg satu yg baik, dah la lansung tak sokong dasar kerajaan, diorg jugak lansung tak bagi idea bernas, mcmana nk run sesebuah polisi tu dgn lebih efisien supaya dpt deliver pd rakyat spt yg diharapkan oleh semua. vice versa! kita belum matang sematang amerika dlm berpolitik.
masalah sikap pulak ialah ialah dari segi moral dan integriti. rasuah, makap dan lain2 insentif bwh meja jdkan institusi kerajaan ada reputasi buruk.
tak tau malu pulak bila kita tak deliver job, kita selamba buat bodo dan nk stay makan gaji dgn jayanya. tgk kt jepun, tak payah akta pun, kalau tak boleh deliver, diorg terus berhenti dgn announcement dibuat kt national tv. maju jugak kerajaan diorg.
menjawab soalan, aku on je kalau nk buat mcm ni, tp pastikan adakah kita buang seseorg penjawat awam tu dek tak menyokong kerajaan, atau dek tak menyokong parti memerintah. kerajaan adalah institusi yg berkhidmat utk rakyat, jd kalau tak sokong kerajaan, patut sgt kena buang. tp tak menyokong parti memerintah ialah maksudnya dia bukan ahli, tak pergi perhimpunan agung atau muktamar, tak jugak ahli cabang, bukan ahli pemuda apatah lagi ahli dewan muslimah. parti memerintah adalah utk kepentingan ahli, dan bukan kerana rakyat.
mmg betul parti memerintah adalah parti yg membentuk kerajaan, tp dlm kerajaan kita, perlu ada yg memiliki pandangan berbeza, yg paling penting mesti sama2 semua tak kira penyokong parti mana deliver sebaik mungkin utk rakyat selagi terdaya dan mampu. tp yg tak boleh deliver, elok sgt dibuang. so kalau btul nk implement, kita mesti ada gaya kerajaan campuran, dan mengenepikan golongan sampah yg noncomformist dan tak nak deliver pd rakyat pun.
Saidina Ali pernah menyampaikan;
Janganlah melihat kepada sesiapa yang berkata, lihatlah kepada apa yang dikatakan
malah Allah pun berfirman;
Dan berpegang teguhlah kamu semuanya kepada tali (Agama) Allah, dan janganlah kamu bercerai-berai, dan ingatlah akan nikmat Allah kepadamu ketika kamu dahulu (masa jahiliah) bermusuh-musuhan, maka Allah menjinakkan antara hatimu (sehingga kamu bersatu padu) maka jadilah kamu dengan nikmat Allah itu bersaudara. Dan kamu dahulu telah berada ditepi jurang neraka, lalu Allah menyelamatkan kamu dari pada jurang neraka itu. Demikianlah Allah menerangkan ayat-ayatNya kepadamu, supaya kamu mendapat petunjuk.
(Q.S.Ali 'Imran:103)
lastly, aku rasa kita boleh je nk berselisih pendapat, tp jgn la sampai bergaduh dan berpecah belah. kesian wo kena buang keje, biar je dia hipokrit, janji dpt deliver keje dan tugas dgn baik untung2 dia berubah hati dan kita doakan yg terbaik utk dia supaya dpt berkhidmat dgn cemerlang. masalahnya ramai je yg penyokong kerajaan, tp x deliver keje pn, goyang kaki je tgk org lain buat keje, tak nak terlibat dgn aktiviti, yg itu nk kira macam mana? keh keh keh!
lastly, aku rasa kita boleh je nk berselisih pendapat, tp jgn la sampai bergaduh dan berpecah belah. kesian wo kena buang keje, biar je dia hipokrit, janji dpt deliver keje dan tugas dgn baik untung2 dia berubah hati dan kita doakan yg terbaik utk dia supaya dpt berkhidmat dgn cemerlang. masalahnya ramai je yg penyokong kerajaan, tp x deliver keje pn, goyang kaki je tgk org lain buat keje, tak nak terlibat dgn aktiviti, yg itu nk kira macam mana? keh keh keh!
 |
| Berani Ke Tak Sebenarnya Kita Nak Kesini? |
Jumaat, Disember 02, 2011
Vernakular Perosak Negara
Hari tu result UPSR keluar lagi. Ibu, ayah, papa, mama, ummi, walid, daddy, mummy berebut bergegas ke sekolah, nak menilai berapa A anak masing-masing dapat. Anak2 yang cemerlang seronok kegembiraan, dan
OK, apa kaitannya dengan Sekolah satu sistem ni?
Lepas UPSR, anak akan terus bersekolah. Anak2 kita akan terus didalam kelompok2 sendiri, tak bercampur secara harmoni, takkan merasa bergaul dengan rakan yang lain pembawakan diri. Tamat sekolah menengah, ke universiti. masih kekal dengan kelompok yang sama, terus menerus dibelenggu diri, tanpa disedari dengan sifat tak kenal erti perpaduan sejati. Akhir universiti, bekerja, ada rezeki, bergaul lah si Abu, Ah Chong dan Maniam dalam satu pejabat, tapi yang terus tak sedar ini, sifat rasis, hipokrit, dan perasaan dipinggiri makin menebal dalam diri. SEKOLAH SEHARUSNYA MEMAINKAN PERANAN PALING BESTARI BAGI MENANGANI ISU INI.
1 Malaysia takkan pasti kalau benda ni x ditangani. Perlembagaan negara akan terus di ingkari kalau isu ini tak berkesudahan tanpa erti.
Antara penyelesaiannya, sekolah satu sistem. tapi tulah, ini benda basi, ini benda fantasi. Hidup sebagai seorang yang mencari rezeki sebagai seorang pengajar, semakin masa berlalu, semakin masa itu mendidik akan nilai2 yg terbaik boleh direncana andai ada yang ditokok, ditambah dan diubah.
Sekolah satu sistem. Kenapa?
Ini asas penyatuan bangsa, ini asas 1Malaysia.
Ini perlukan sokongan semua, ini perlukan suara anda.
Menukar kerajaan sekalipun, takkan bantu meningkatkan penyatuan bangsa yang mutlak kalau asasnya longgar, dasarnya longlai.
Sekolah satu sistem. Bagaimana?
bila tiada lagi pengenalan diri mengikut ras
bila prejudis lesap dari dalam jiwa
bila kita bertutur satu bahasa
bila kita tak lagi menggelar yang buruk2 sesama kita
Sekolah satu sistem. Bila?
Hapuskan SRJK, kekalkan satu aliran saja
Hapuskan Prejudis, Hipokrasi dan Buruk Sangka!
 |
| Takkan Nak Harapkan Bolasepak Sahaja Yang Menyatukan Kita Semua? |
Khamis, November 24, 2011
Posting Terbuka Untuk Nazmi Faiz Mansor
Masa lawan indon, kau selamba shielding Bonai macam xde ape je. Semalam kau shielding lagi mamat Syria tu macam biasa, dan kau punye through pas memang macam cilaka punye cantik. Tu belum sebut lagi pasal passing one-touch kau macam gampang punya cun. Walaupun belum betul2 laju macam abang Kunanlan kau, tapi kau rajin hambat bola. Meroyan aku tengok posession dalam zone pun kau konker. Tau bila nak cen said, tau bila nak nak bagi bola lob. Control bola pun kemas. Cerdik betul kau main bola. Makan ape la kau ni?
Camni la dik, abang tak gemar puji2 orang ni, kau tu lelaki, karang orang cas aku gay. Tapi macam ni je lah, kena ingat, usaha, doa, tawakal. benda lain biar rakyat Malaysia buat utk kau. SPM tak payah ambik, kau main bola dulu sampai tahap dewa, sampai Piala Dunia pertama untuk Malaysia, baru amik SPM kemudian nanti. SPM bukan segala2nya dik, harapan Malaysia sekarang boleh jadi pemangkin kejayaan untuk kau terus pawe di masa hadapan. Paling penting jaga akhlak, mak bapak pun restu, Allah pun suka, berkat pun datang dik. Setel.
Lagi satu dik, orang cakap kau macam Kaka ke, macam Messi ke, macam David Silva ke, mcm cilake ke, mcm gampang ke, kau jangan pedulik kan dik, walaupun aku tengok kau ada la sikit2 macam aku. tapi yang penting dik, Nazmi Faiz mesti jadi Nazmi Faiz, bukan kena jadi macam orang lain. Kau buat biasa je, kau ikut stail kau, mcm hari2 biasa kau main bola untuk Malaysia hari tu, semalam dan sampai kau pencen. Majulah Nazmi Faiz Untuk Negara!
Camni la dik, abang tak gemar puji2 orang ni, kau tu lelaki, karang orang cas aku gay. Tapi macam ni je lah, kena ingat, usaha, doa, tawakal. benda lain biar rakyat Malaysia buat utk kau. SPM tak payah ambik, kau main bola dulu sampai tahap dewa, sampai Piala Dunia pertama untuk Malaysia, baru amik SPM kemudian nanti. SPM bukan segala2nya dik, harapan Malaysia sekarang boleh jadi pemangkin kejayaan untuk kau terus pawe di masa hadapan. Paling penting jaga akhlak, mak bapak pun restu, Allah pun suka, berkat pun datang dik. Setel.
 |
| Berbaju kuning itu lah dia Nazmi Faiz Mansor |
Langgan:
Catatan (Atom)
Lebih Kurang Kalau Pun Tak Sama Dengan
